VARADHAN Vs. M GOVINDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 15. 07. 2009 in I. A. No. 38 of 2009 in A. S. No. 99 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in allowing the application filed by the respondent/ appellant/defendant under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code praying permission of the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the petition as an additional evidence.

(2.) THE learned principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, while passing orders in I. A. No. 38 of 2009 on 15. 07. 2009, has observed that 'heard both sides. No valid objections in the counter. In the interest of justice, this petition is allowed and passed orders accordingly. '

(3.) ASSAILING the said order passed in I. A. No. 38 of 2009 by the learned Principal district Judge, Tiruvallur, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the order passed in I. A. No. 38 of 2009 suffers from serious infirmity in law as the same is not in accordance with the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code and as a matter of fact, I. A. No. 38 of 2009 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. to receive the documents mentioned in the petition as additional evidence has to be considered along with the main appeal and not separately, has done in the present case on hand and indeed, the learned principal District Judge should have heard the main appeal along with I. A. No. 38 of 2009 and moreover, the respondent/defendant has not stated in his affidavit in I. A. No. 38 of 2009 that inspite of his due diligence the documents sought to be marked have not been made available during the course of the trial of the main case and no proper reasons have been ascribed by the respondent/defendant for not producing the documents earlier and added further, the observation of the learned Principal District Judge stating that 'no Valid objections in the counter' runs contra to the counter filed by the revision petitioner to i. A. No. 38 of 2009 wherein the revision petitioner has categorically stated that 'the documents filed along with along with the petition are all not related to this appeal etc. ' and moreover, the documents No. 5 to 13 are not relevant to the issues in the case and also that documents No. 14 to 17 are not related to the case and they have been obtained for the purpose of filing this appeal at the belated stage and all the more the revision petitioner has already handed over the original parent documents relating to the suit property to the respondent/ appellant/defendant and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned principal District Judge in I. A. No. 38 of 2009 has to be set aside in the interest of justice.